Talk:Smokers Outside the Hospital Doors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

	Alternative music Portal This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Smokers Outside the Hospital Doors was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: July 8, 2007

[edit] Similarities

The bass line is exactly the same as the one in Sheriff Fatman by Carter USM. It is impossible to provide citation as to do so would require audio samples of both songs.

I think that'd be something not worth knowing

But then, why is it ok to mention the similarities between Echoes by Pink Floyd and Andrew Lloyd Webber's opera? I think this portion should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.209.228 (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it is opinion and not fact. Fact is what this article is about. Besides the bass lines sound nothing alike anyway. Please do not post it again. Thanks.Wikipéire (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review - Fail

See Good Article Criteria for further details.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

The article, as of July 8, 2007, does not meet all the Good Article Criterion. The entire "Structure" section contains Original Research, and needs a few references placed in for verification. The section should be, in terms of placement, after the "Production" section. Some images of the music video would, ultimately, enhance to article's quality. All in all, the article is not quite comprehensive enough to be a Good Article, as far more information needs to be added, including references. When was it released? What formats? How well did the single sell? Chart-wise, was it successful, or a flop? These issues need to be worked into the prose before another GAC should be considered. A Peer Review is my first recommendation to get this article on the right track to identify nit-picks. If you feel this review is in error, or disagree in any way, feel free to have this decision reviewed. NSR77 ^T_C 23:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Pleas try to reference this sentence "The single peaked at number 7 on the UK singles chart." OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)